The paper raises the question of the normative representation of socio-political terms in modern explanatory dictionaries, the elaboration of a correct definition that would reflect the key characteristics of the latest lexemes. Among the special features of socio-political nomination we can emphasize the following: high instability, if to compare with other groups of vocabulary; specifics of communicative influence; names emergence before the establishment of the phenomena itself; desemantization of frequently used words and phrases. Among the most important principles of dictionary compiling we point out: 1) the team of compilers formation (specialists in the field of knowledge to be covered by dictionary, who is responsible for selecting terms for the dictionary, and for the professional correctness and objectivity of the definitions; a linguist-terminologist who recommends which term to use by agreeing it with a definition and terms of other languages; Ukrainian philologist, who edits terms and their definition according to the norms of modern Ukrainian language; a programmer who provides the implementation of the project at a computer level that makes it possible substantially to improve the work of the group); 2) the creation of a dictionary database (the use of all available branch dictionaries (translated, interpretative, encyclopaedic); the use of scientific literature and periodicals (for example, there are many terms in the periodicity that have already been distributed but have not yet found their place in dictionaries), direct work with informants – specialists of the relevant branch, who will complement the existing bank with the frequently used terms, or with the terms difficult to translate into Ukrainian, the latest in the branch, do not have a unique interpretation among specialists etc.; 3) working out definitions; 4) choosing appropriate Ukrainian term or translating into Ukrainian. The analysis of the latest lexical material in comparison with the data of the earlier dictionaries makes it possible to talk about changes in the meaning of a number of words and phrases (including Sovietisms), about the emergence or actualization of political meanings in words from outside of the political sphere, about the complication of systemic links between the words of one nest, the blurring of the semantics of some units. The absolute unification of definition is impossible because of certain restrictions, such as: 1. the semantics of some words is not limited to the certain standard interpretation, it requires the introduction of a new generic concept into the definition; 2. the word with political semantics should organically fit into the vocabulary system, which includes the vocabulary of other thematic groups. In a language, a term may belong to several different fields of knowledge or have several meanings, only one of which belongs to the group under consideration. The standard definition can only be used unchanged if it is potentially can be used in different thematic groups and covers the semantics of a word that goes beyond the scope of politics, or if the political and non-political meanings can be clearly deduced in the dictionary article. It can be argued that the problem of unifying definitions at the level of the main part of the term-fund remains open in terminology, despite the fact that possible solutions to this problem have been repeatedly violated in the scientific literature. In addition, the study and practical application of extra-intronging factors of creation and use of certain terms helps to unify the terminology system itself.